Author: John Brookland

John Brookland is an animal welfarist, and amateur historian. He authors two popular blogs: animalrightsandwrongs.uk and animalrightsandwrongs.com with a monthly worldwide readership of thousands. He has written seven books on his exploits helping animals, also on social history and a book on the war horses of World War One. During his long and varied career which has taken him round the world, he has unfortunately witnessed most of the horrors of animal cruelty there is to see and has gained extensive insight into most animal welfare issues which he uses to write his blogs. He is now retired and still travelling the world with his partner to view wildlife and wild places before they and he disappear.

Top 5 fund-raising tactics of animal charities.

Top eight UK animal welfare charities raised £500,000,000 in 2016

The “saving animals” industry has become a cut-throat commercial enterprise, and there is much rivalry and disunity between the charities manifesting itself in astute advertising and fund-raising. It is a continual game of one upmanship where they each try to outshine each other in the caring stakes or come up with creative ideas that will appeal to prospective benefactors and get a larger cut of the funds available. They operate just like large commercial conglomerates fighting it out for business with advertising agencies being employed to stay one step ahead. They have truly become big business with the top eight UK animal welfare charities raising £500,000,000 in 2016.

Animal charities are quick to disparage their competitors if they perceive a rival has been inefficient or become unpopular through its philosophies and activities. It seems that it is mainly the so-called animal welfare charities that involve themselves in these antics, while animal rights and international organisations tend to focus more on their aims.

There are hundreds of animal charities operating in the UK all with their own agendas, aims and policies filling their own niche in the animal rescue and protection market, so many in fact that opportunities for fund-raising have become increasingly oversubscribed. Fund-raising tactics have become more and more competitive as each charity attempts to keep its head above water and snatch money from their rivals by looking more caring. I sometimes wonder if they have lost sight of their ideals in their attempts to make money and they spend large sums in their quest for funds.

The ends animal welfare charities will go to get your money.

1. Name changing

Many charities particularly the old institutional ones find that changing their names to re-invent and raise their profiles is a good ploy. It increases the awareness of their good work and campaigns and in turn increases their funding as well. In the UK the Cats Protection League (CPL) dropped the “League”and became plain Cats Protection declaring that people didn’t know what the word meant and it made them seem old-fashioned.

In 2003 the National Canine Defence League (NCDL) changed to the Dogs Trust to purvey a more up to date image and show more accurately their work, as they felt the public were not that aware of their existence even though they were the largest dog orientated charity in the UK. By cleverly using the word ‘trust’ they felt the public would have more belief in them, give more money and would make their name easier to remember. They are most famous for their campaign slogan of ‘a dog is for life, not just for Christmas’ which they have successfully used since 1978, although the sentiment is of little relevance today as abandonment is a persistent problem, but it remains a wonderful marketing ploy during that season.

The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) changed to simple World Animal Protection (WAP) to be ‘clearer, more distinct and more memorable’ and the British Union for Anti- Vivisection (BUAV), founded in 1898, has become Cruelty Free International, ‘a clearer, simpler and more positive’ title in order‘to help achieve more for animals in laboratories’. They believed the public didn’t understand what their old name meant thus preventing people supporting them and by having a ‘British’ name hindered them in their work internationally.

2. Sound bites

Charities introduce new sound bites from time to time to make them seem more caring which is another little subconscious trick, as in the case of the term ‘forever home’ which appeared from nowhere, an incredibly twee but effective catch-phrase, which suddenly became prominent and was quickly taken up by every charity finding new homes for animals, becoming part of everyone’s vocabulary. It is a rather disingenuous use of the term as there is no guarantee that any new home will be ‘forever, but our sentimental side allows us to be taken in by it.

Even the word ‘rescue’ has become somewhat high-jacked by charities as a fund-raising ploy and is much over-used. Although defined as to save ‘somebody or something from a dangerous or harmful situation‘, it is now used somewhat out of context to label any animal taken from a charity homing centre when in reality most of the animals have not been rescued but are unwanted brought in by owners to be re-cycled. Regardless of background they all become “rescue” animals, although in some cases being rescued from months of confinement and boredom might be the right connotation.

3. When you have gone

Guaranteeing to find a new home for a pet once ‘you have gone’ is a relatively new idea for fund-raising although it is marketed as a service to the community. The idea was quickly copied by most major charities, resulting in the RSPCA ‘Home for Life’, the Blue Cross ‘Pets into Care’, Cats Protection ‘Cat Guarantee Card’ and the Dogs Trust ‘Canine Care Card’ all offering to take on your pet regardless of its age or health once you have died.

Cynics might claim that this is obviously a fund-raising tactic to encourage more legacies from the owners before they die and at least one, the Cats Protection, are open about this by stating ‘the service is free, but people may wish to leave us a gift in their will as a thank you’. The Dogs Trust under their scheme state that ‘we will find your dog/s new owners whose lifestyle and experience match their needs. But if for any reason your dog/s cannot be rehomed we will look after them for the rest of their lives’.

Whether these schemes are the best use of facilities and funds and in the best interests of the animals is arguable. Most humane organisations insist they are constantly overrun, have long waiting lists and need extra funding so guaranteeing space in these circumstances is questionable. Keeping an animal ‘for the rest of its life’ in long-term confinement just like zoo animals, many professionals believe can prove harmful to their mental state because with the best will in the world you cannot give all the care and attention of a proper home. In some cases, euthanasia might be proper if the animal is too old and infirm, but of course this goes against the principle of the organisations and their necessity for raising funds.

One well-known UK charity, boasted in its annual report that it kept a dog for 1,108 days before finding it a home, which equates to 30% of the poor dog’s life. Although a great achievement it conjures up the ethical question of whether it is fair to keep a dog or cat incarcerated for that long.

4. Rivalry in being seen as more caring.

Animal welfare charities are always looking for new opportunities to look more caring than their rivals and will jump on an issue that is topical or in favour. This has happened recently when one charity came up with the idea of helping street pets of the homeless. All the dog charities quickly waded in with schemes and new charities established which has attracted news coverage and publicity, but in this case it could be viewed that they are aiding and abetting animals being kept in unsuitable and unstable conditions and even construed as aiding unnecessary suffering.

5. The no-kill tactic of we never put a healthy animal to sleep

The unambiguous term “no-kill” is widely used in the USA to differentiate an animal charity with such a policy from that of one who supposedly does kill animals. In the UK we tend to use a more benign phrase “we never put a healthy animal to sleep” although no-kill is gradually creeping into usage here. Nearly all charities make this rather cynical claim as they cannot afford to do otherwise in these modern times if they want to survive. It becomes cynical because some charities use the terms as a ploy to raise funds by inferring that their rivals do. It is something donors should not be taken in by.

The use of the term is somewhat misleading as it comes with a proviso that most caring charities do kill animals that are assessed too ill, unsafe or unsuitable for re-homing. No animal rescue charity can truly call itself no-kill  unless they refuse to take in animals which are beyond help and perhaps allow them to suffer by doing so. Many do turn their backs on certain animals or operate a ‘selective intake policy’ which is becoming more common and can in some circumstances be harmful to those animals which are in most need of help.

When donating money to animal rescue charities we must be very careful not to be mislead by some of their fund-raising antics and literature as they are very astute when it comes to grabbing our donations, but do not necessarily put it to the best use.

Fads and crazes: pocket pets and teacup dogs – we never learn.

Fads and crazes have being going on for decades beginning with the hamster in the 1930’s and now pocket pets and teacup dogs.

Whenever the pet trade and animal breeders feel that the market is becoming stale, they are very good at producing and introducing new fads and crazes to keep the gullible and fickle pet acquiring public in the mood for acquiring pets. This has being going on for decades beginning with the hamster in the 1930’s and now pocket pets and teacup dogs. The pet trade are very good at manipulating us by coming up with new species of animals to promote and sell by using social media and clever marketing to make the poor creature a must have.

Fads or crazes for a type of pet come along at regular intervals and many begin in the USA and are often driven by so-called celebrities who if photographed with a certain breed of dog immediately incite a rush to acquire the same.

We are also bizarrely influenced to buy certain animals by movies, particularly animated ones, when children badger their parents who disgracefully submit to their requests. We never seem to learn as back in 1980’s I remember the ninja turtle movies spawned a disastrous craze for baby turtles. The pet trade jumped all over this fad with a lot of help from the media, which resulted in coerced parents buying these tiny creatures to placate their youngsters , with no regard or common sense to their long-term needs and the problems that would occur.

I was working as an animal health inspector at the Animal Quarantine Station at London Heathrow airport at the time and saw these beautiful tiny creatures bred and shipped in their thousands arriving from the USA in aircraft holds. 200 writhing turtles were piled into each small cardboard box, and flown worldwide to meet the demand. Many died or were squashed en-route, thousands died after being bought and thousands abandoned into waterways to take their chances when they grew too big causing environmental and health issues.

In the late nineties we had a craze for chipmunks or small side-striped squirrels driven by the Alvin animated films and in 2010 a television advertising campaign incredibly led people to buy meerkats as pets.

In 2016, the US pet trade was boosted by two animated films ‘Finding Dory’ and the ‘Secret Life of Pets’ which ‘attracted the interest, attention and investment in both new and existing pets’ according to Euromonitor.com pet care industry reports. These films also show the draw of animals to both children and adults as they grossed nearly US$2 billion between them. The fact that we are easily enticed into acquiring live animals on a whim is frightening.

Pocket Pets

Pet rat, pocket pet, rat
Pocket pets is just one of the continual fads and crazes we insist on falling for regardless of the consequences to the poor animals.

Recently we have seen a fad for so-called ‘pocket pets’, their popularity spread by social media all around the world with the obvious consequences. Originally the idea was to market small pets like mice, rats and hamsters as ideal pets for carrying around in your pocket. Apart from anything else, this is an extremely unhygienic idea and of course cruel. It is not really a new fad, but a re-invention as many schoolkids have carried pet mice in their pockets for decades particularly to frighten their teacher.

The market for keeping once popular small mammals was declining and viewed by many as ‘boring’ so something was required to make them more appealing. This was achieved by re-inventing them as ‘pocket pets’.

At first the term pocket pets was restricted to small mammals such as mice, rats and hamsters, but unfortunately the term was soon hijacked and re-branded as any pet ‘the size of a pocket’. This has led to totally unsuitable pets being marketed with small exotic species like skunks, chinchillas, degus, prairie dogs, sugar gliders and flying squirrels and even tortoises and birds, obviously too big for most pockets.

Rabbits were also re-branded when their appeal declined due to fewer people having gardens and so they became ideal ‘house pets‘ and a craze for huge breeds of rabbit was born.

This has in turn created unsuitable and poor standards of care resulting in premature deaths, suffering and more discarded animals. As far as the pet trade is concerned, any animal species can be made into a suitable pet and so skunks have their scent glands removed to make them acceptable.

Designer Dogs

In the UK, whichever breed won the national dog show at Crufts became the must have dog, then we had a craze for macho breeds such as the German Shepherd back in the sixties when everyone was into guard dogs, then Dobermanns and Rottweilers and recently Pit Bulls and Staffordshire Bull Terriers that have become the blight of many parts of the world. But times change and with the help yet again of social media we have progressed to the recent fad for designer cross breeds with nonsense names and even more recently the French Bulldog has come to prominence with 10.5 million photographs of it on Instagram following its celebrity status with people like Lady Gaga.

Handbag and teacup dogs

Then we had a celebrity led craze for “handbag” dogs which were just traditional toy breeds, but  someone had to invent the fashion trend to carry them instead of allowing them to be normal dogs. Not satisfied with handbag dogs we have moved on to another new fad for so-called “Teacup” dogs.

At one time these tiny dogs only existed in natural form as runts of a litter, the last in line, the weakest and sickest which often died or were ignored by their mothers. The clue to the health status of these dogs is in the term runt, but somewhere along the line someone decided what a good idea to start mating these sickly runts by seeking out and intentionally mating undersized dogs and begin a craze for these ‘cute’ miniature dogs.

They are called “new breeds” but of course this is nonsense, but a good marketing point. The market is mainly gullible young girls and other ‘fashion’ conscious women who inexplicably feel they are a necessary accessory and part with hundreds if not thousands of pounds to own one. For every post on the internet advising against buying one there is another extolling the virtues of getting one.

Someone has even invented a standard for a teacup breed which stipulates that they must be less than 17 inches long at age one year and weigh four pounds or less to qualify. This immediately raises problems as there is no guarantee what size it will grow to when bought as a tiny puppy and possibly disappoint its owner. They also come with a never-ending list of health, behavioural and safety issues including being easy prey for hawks, other dogs and predators, being stepped on, dying from falls and requiring special feeding and toileting.

Despite all this it doesn’t deter people from buying them and it is the same for all the other unsuitable pets as well. We have little interest in the needs of animals and the repercussions involved only self-interest and so we never learn – we just move on to the next poor creature to exploit.